There is a train of thought that links all of these activities together under the heading of deviant behavior. At one point the majority of society considered homosexual behavior as aberrant but that societal view has changed. Who is to say that society doesn't change its view on pedophilia, incest and bestiality? If society does change its perspective does that mean that these activities are now acceptable? Why is incest bad today but OK tomorrow? Are right and wrong so easily transmutable now? If society decides what is right and what is wrong is there really such a thing as right and wrong or are they just fluid concepts that are determined by which way the wind is blowing?

Again, my argument is about victimization in a criminal sense. There is no victim when two consenting adults have a sexual relationship, whether they are gay or straight. Pedophiles and those who practice beastility victimize helpless people or creatures. If incest involves pedophelia or rape, it is criminally sanctioned.

The DSM serves two functions: providing a standardized tool for diagnosing mental health conditions, and providing "V-Codes" for billing insurance companies and medicaid for services to treat those conditions. If homosexuality is listed as a disorder, then insurance companies and medicaid will have to pay for therapy for every gay person in their program who seeks it.

As pedophelia is considered incurable, no insurance company nor medicaid will cover treatment for it. The purpose of putting it in the DSM is mainly for diagnostic purposes, and for prison shrinks to use for reporting purposes, as they are not billing by the case, for the most part.

01-18-2013, 11:52 AM

FlaGator

Quote:

Originally Posted by noonwitch

Again, my argument is about victimization in a criminal sense. There is no victim when two consenting adults have a sexual relationship, whether they are gay or straight. Pedophiles and those who practice beastility victimize helpless people or creatures. If incest involves pedophelia or rape, it is criminally sanctioned.

The DSM serves two functions: providing a standardized tool for diagnosing mental health conditions, and providing "V-Codes" for billing insurance companies and medicaid for services to treat those conditions. If homosexuality is listed as a disorder, then insurance companies and medicaid will have to pay for therapy for every gay person in their program who seeks it.

As pedophelia is considered incurable, no insurance company nor medicaid will cover treatment for it. The purpose of putting it in the DSM is mainly for diagnostic purposes, and for prison shrinks to use for reporting purposes, as they are not billing by the case, for the most part.

I no longer accept the concept that what two consenting adults do has no consequences for anyone other than themselvs. Some studies show that when those involved in same sex relationships adopt or via in vitro fertilisation have children the children grow up with issues not common in homes with two parents of the opposite sex. In this case the are broad repercussions to what the two adults consented to.

No decision is made in a vacuum and no action remains strictly between two individuals. Is adultry a good thing? That is an event that takes place between two consenting adults that has much greater ramifications when the choice comes to light? What about sex for hire? That is a consensual relationship with the potential to cause harm will beyond the borders of the relationship.

Every action that people take is like throwing a pebble in a pond the ripples that expand outward have the potential to interact negatively with other ripples and even with other pebbles.

01-18-2013, 12:19 PM

txradioguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlaGator

I no longer accept the concept that what two consenting adults do has no consequences for anyone other than themselvs. Some studies show that when those involved in same sex relationships adopt or via in vitro fertilisation have children the children grow up with issues not common in homes with two parents of the opposite sex. In this case the are broad repercussions to what the two adults consented to.

No decision is made in a vacuum and no action remains strictly between two individuals. Is adultry a good thing? That is an event that takes place between two consenting adults that has much greater ramifications when the choice comes to light? What about sex for hire? That is a consensual relationship with the potential to cause harm will beyond the borders of the relationship.

Every action that people take is like throwing a pebble in a pond the ripples that expand outward have the potential to interact negatively with other ripples and even with other pebbles.

What you are saying makes sense to normal people. But you're talking to a Lib. There are no definite lines with them...no absolutes or rights and wrongs.

Only millions of shades of gray.

You might as well be speaking Farsi to noooner for all the comprehension she'll have of what you said.

01-18-2013, 01:22 PM

noonwitch

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlaGator

I no longer accept the concept that what two consenting adults do has no consequences for anyone other than themselvs. Some studies show that when those involved in same sex relationships adopt or via in vitro fertilisation have children the children grow up with issues not common in homes with two parents of the opposite sex. In this case the are broad repercussions to what the two adults consented to.

No decision is made in a vacuum and no action remains strictly between two individuals. Is adultry a good thing? That is an event that takes place between two consenting adults that has much greater ramifications when the choice comes to light? What about sex for hire? That is a consensual relationship with the potential to cause harm will beyond the borders of the relationship.

Every action that people take is like throwing a pebble in a pond the ripples that expand outward have the potential to interact negatively with other ripples and even with other pebbles.

There are the moral standards of right and wrong that one chooses to live his or her life according to, and then there are the standards of right and wrong that the community decides to sanction criminally. To make something a crime, there has to be a clear victim.

01-18-2013, 01:23 PM

txradioguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by noonwitch

There are the moral standards of right and wrong that one chooses to live his or her life according to, and then there are the standards of right and wrong that the community decides to sanction criminally. To make something a crime, there has to be a clear victim.

And you prove my point brilliantly. :rolleyes:

01-18-2013, 01:37 PM

Wibbins

I will pray for people that have these dark desires, I think the problem in today's society is that we eat so many things with hormones inside them that children are hitting puberty earlier than they should and subsequently they're wearing big girl clothes like form fitting pants ugh, 12 year old girls are looking like they're 16 and acting like them too.

Also, it doesn't help that liberals are wanting pre-teens to "explore their sexuality" which means if it feels good do it and do it often. This leads to a breakdown of what sex means and what place it has in society which is between a man and woman in marriage for procreation and marital bonding. Outside of this it's a selfish act only meant for short term pleasure which in turn destroys the bond that could be possible had the 2 not have been sexual active before marriage. Couple this with the notion that liberals say marriage is about "love" and we now have a generation that thinks if you "love" someone then you should have sex with them and then get married and as soon as the "love" ends then the only logical notion is that of divorce. Oh, don't worry this "love" feeling comes after the sex just like queer "love" so of course liberals then equate the 2 and that's where we have the backwards notion of same-sex "marriage".

This. is. not. coincidence. This has been planned from the very beginning, you can NOT have a socialist/communist society and a strong family unit. God impresses on my heart that this is what Satan does, since he cannot destroy God he must destroy God's Creation and what is more devastating than destroying the relationship/bond between a husband and wife which is in the image of God and His Church? Nothing.

01-18-2013, 02:25 PM

DumbAss Tanker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wibbins

I will pray for people that have these dark desires, I think the problem in today's society is that we eat so many things with hormones inside them that children are hitting puberty earlier than they should and subsequently they're wearing big girl clothes like form fitting pants ugh, 12 year old girls are looking like they're 16 and acting like them too.

That and the other stuff you discuss may have a lot to do with the problem of runaway underage sex and exploitation, but it isn't really what paedophilia is about, though it's frequently misused to describe sex that simply involves someone who is sexually mature but below an arbitrary legal age limit. The paedophilia these freaks are trying to normalize is the real thing in psychiatric terms, meaning a sexual attraction to sexually-IMMATURE features of a child.

01-18-2013, 03:26 PM

Novaheart

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlaGator

I no longer accept the concept that what two consenting adults do has no consequences for anyone other than themselvs. Some studies show that when those involved in same sex relationships adopt or via in vitro fertilisation have children the children grow up with issues not common in homes with two parents of the opposite sex. In this case the are broad repercussions to what the two adults consented to.

No decision is made in a vacuum and no action remains strictly between two individuals. Is adultry a good thing? That is an event that takes place between two consenting adults that has much greater ramifications when the choice comes to light? What about sex for hire? That is a consensual relationship with the potential to cause harm will beyond the borders of the relationship.

Every action that people take is like throwing a pebble in a pond the ripples that expand outward have the potential to interact negatively with other ripples and even with other pebbles.

How ominous~

BTW, that's my niece you are talking about. She's bright, a math wiz, a theater major, and spends way too much money on clothes, nails and hair. She performs in serious theatrical productions and will even sing and dance as long as her mother and I aren't paying too close attention. She can drive but prefers not to. She has had a rather sheltered life, but is adjusting to a nonsheltered life quite well. I worry that she will be kidnapped off BART, not that she will jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. She grew up without a father, it's true... she and some large percentage of her peers. She also grew up in a closely knit family with her maternal grandparents, and an uncle who has been a daily part of her life in a parenting role... a level of family involvement not shared by a large percentage of her peers. She went to Quaker elementary school and was home schooled several years and is finishing at a nonscary public high school.

Exactly what is it that you think is wrong with my niece?

Edit to add:

Less confrontationally- I have never seen one of those articles or study-analysises which could reasonably be considered from an objective source. They are always either anti-gay groups trying to prove that children of gay people are messed up, or gay people trying to prove that gay parents are perfect.

I also have never seen such a study with methodology that I approve of. They will often say things like

"Children of same parent households are more likely to experiment with drugs." (I made that up since you haven't actually cited a study)

How do they arrive at that conclusion? If 95% of the children studied (which are almost always a self selected group) are lifelong residents of San Francisco city proper and New York city proper then they should be compared to children of heterosexual couples who live in the same city and demographic. Unless you do that, then you could also determine that the children of San Francisco are more likely to experiment with drugs because they are more likely to eat tofu and soy milk on a weekly basis.

A habit of the anti-gay groups is to compare self selected gay groups to unrelated or normed heterosexual groups. A classic case of this is when they use San Francisco stats for gay men and compare them to national numbers for presumably heterosexual men or "population as a whole". As I often say, using SF stats is like counting drunks in a bar to determine alcoholism rates. The numbers out of San Francisco aren't normal for anyone. But those anti-gay groups never bother to compare the stats for heterosexuals who live there against Indiana. Guess what? If you studied heterosexuals in San Francisco in the 1980's you would have found high rates of drug use and STD's relative to Podunk as well.

01-18-2013, 05:08 PM

FlaGator

Quote:

Originally Posted by noonwitch

There are the moral standards of right and wrong that one chooses to live his or her life according to, and then there are the standards of right and wrong that the community decides to sanction criminally. To make something a crime, there has to be a clear victim.

You highlight the problem, there should only be one set of moral standards and everyone should be held accountable to them. To do otherwise it to venture in the the ethical desert of of moral relativism and the post-modern philosophy of post modernism that denies the existence of absolute truth.

G. K. Chesterton posed the question "If truth is relative then to what is it relative?"

If there are multiple sets of morals then whose morals win out in a conflict of morals? Does society's morals trump the individual's morals? If a society's moral win out then what happens when the morals of two society's clash (example: western morality vs. Islamic morality)? In a war of values does might make right? If Islamic values triumph then are all the western morals proven to be immoral? Has same homosexuality gone from being morally acceptable to an immoral act punishable by death because Islamic views are implemented at the point of a sword (or an AK-47)?

01-18-2013, 05:24 PM

FlaGator

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novaheart

How ominous~

BTW, that's my niece you are talking about. She's bright, a math wiz, a theater major, and spends way too much money on clothes, nails and hair. She performs in serious theatrical productions and will even sing and dance as long as her mother and I aren't paying too close attention. She can drive but prefers not to. She has had a rather sheltered life, but is adjusting to a nonsheltered life quite well. I worry that she will be kidnapped off BART, not that she will jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. She grew up without a father, it's true... she and some large percentage of her peers. She also grew up in a closely knit family with her maternal grandparents, and an uncle who has been a daily part of her life in a parenting role... a level of family involvement not shared by a large percentage of her peers. She went to Quaker elementary school and was home schooled several years and is finishing at a nonscary public high school.

Exactly what is it that you think is wrong with my niece?

Edit to add:

Less confrontationally- I have never seen one of those articles or study-analysises which could reasonably be considered from an objective source. They are always either anti-gay groups trying to prove that children of gay people are messed up, or gay people trying to prove that gay parents are perfect.

I also have never seen such a study with methodology that I approve of. They will often say things like

"Children of same parent households are more likely to experiment with drugs." (I made that up since you haven't actually cited a study)

How do they arrive at that conclusion? If 95% of the children studied (which are almost always a self selected group) are lifelong residents of San Francisco city proper and New York city proper then they should be compared to children of heterosexual couples who live in the same city and demographic. Unless you do that, then you could also determine that the children of San Francisco are more likely to experiment with drugs because they are more likely to eat tofu and soy milk on a weekly basis.

A habit of the anti-gay groups is to compare self selected gay groups to unrelated or normed heterosexual groups. A classic case of this is when they use San Francisco stats for gay men and compare them to national numbers for presumably heterosexual men or "population as a whole". As I often say, using SF stats is like counting drunks in a bar to determine alcoholism rates. The numbers out of San Francisco aren't normal for anyone. But those anti-gay groups never bother to compare the stats for heterosexuals who live there against Indiana. Guess what? If you studied heterosexuals in San Francisco in the 1980's you would have found high rates of drug use and STD's relative to Podunk as well.

I will indulge the thread jack for a moment:

Your statement: I also have never seen such a study with methodology that I approve of.

Therein lies the problem. I suspect that you will only approve a methodology that validates you pre-conceived notions. Before you get all defensive I am probably also guilty of this.

I never said there was anything wrong with your niece. Is there something wrong with here or is this another straw man?

The other issue with your post was that I was not addressing the validity of the studies on same sex parents. I suspected before you even posted that this would be what you would comment on instead of participating in the larger topic of whether acts between consenting adults have repercussions beyond the consenting parties.